This week at SCOTUS: I’m not aware of any military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking six cases:
- United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 (pend. conf.)
- United States v. Collins, No. 19-184 (pet. filed Aug. 9; Collins resp. filed Sep. 9; Daniels resp. due Oct. 9)
- Richards v. Donovan, et al., No. 19-55 (pet. filed Jun. 8; resp. req. Aug. 14, due Oct. 15)
- Livingstone v. United States, No. 19-5256 (pro se pet. dkt. Jul. 19; resp. waived Jul. 31; pend. conf. on Oct. 1)
- Camacho v. United States, No. 19-243 (pet. filed. Aug 21; resp. waived Sep. 3, pend conf. on Oct. 1)
- McDonald v. United States, No. 19A191 (ext. of time to file cert. pet. granted to Oct. 26)
This week at CAAF: CAAF completed its oral argument schedule for the current term. The first argument of the 2019 term is scheduled for October 16, 2019, at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website is unreachable.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week on Monday, September 30, 2019, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Lee, No. 39531
Whether the military judge abused his discretion in refusing to give a defense-requested instruction that the panel could consider reasonable mistake of fact as to consent as a factor when evaluating whether appellant’s conduct was indecent.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, October 3, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.:
United States v. Nichol, No. 201800286
Case Summary: A general court-martial consisting of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of forcible rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(1), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012)), two specifications of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120(b)(1)(B), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920), and one specification of rape, in violation of Article 120(a)(5), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 920). The members sentenced Appellant to 25 years’ confinement, reduction to paygrade E-1, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged
[I]. Did the military judge err in admitting over Defense objection AOAN D.B.’s out-of-court statement pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)?
[II]. Did the Appellant waive objection on appeal to the military judge’s admission of Ms. D.R.’s out-of-court statement?
Disclosure: I represent the appellant in my personal capacity and will argue this case.